In brief
Published in Science Advances, the University of Melbourne research shows that 107,356 species—from plants to fungi—are traded globally, an amount more than double the earlier estimate of 50,000. The study highlights huge gaps in monitoring data and calls for standardized, transparent, globally coordinated reporting. These findings raise questions about the true scale of trade, the ability to assess sustainability, and how to improve data collection efforts.
On Oct. 31, 2026, a new study published in Science Advances by researchers from the University of Melbourne announced that more than 107,000 species are used and traded worldwide. The research, led by Professor Alice Hughes, identified 107,356 species across plants, animals and fungi, more than twice the 50,000 species estimate that had guided policy for years. The University of Melbourne released a statement Saturday, noting that the study “underlines how much data gaps hinder our ability to assess whether wildlife trade is sustainable.”
The study is the latest in a series of assessments that have sought to quantify the scale of the wildlife trade. Hughes’ team used a combination of existing databases, literature reviews and expert consultations to count species appearing in legal and illegal trade. They found that the trade includes timber, seafood, medicinal plants, pets, cut flowers, ornamental fish and fungi, most of which are legally traded under current regimes. However, for many of these species, there is “little to no data” on quantities, origins or population impacts, Hughes said in a university statement.
Previously, the industry’s biggest headlines – the illegal trade in elephants, tigers and pangolins – had eclipsed the broader picture. “Wildlife trade extends far beyond these headline species,” Hughes said, “and most of the species we see in trade are legal.” The current estimate suggests that the industry’s reach is far wider, affecting almost half of the world’s biodiversity. The omission of many species from earlier estimates stems largely from fragmented data streams and the absence of mandatory reporting for legal commerce.
Hughes highlighted that the top 97% of species now appear outside the purview of the global biodiversity framework’s trade target. “The existing target only covers about 2 to 3 percent of species in trade,” she said. “The remaining 97 percent are invisible to current monitoring systems.” The study’s methodology, described in the Science Advances paper, is therefore an attempt not only to count species but also to point out where data gaps are most severe. Such gaps undermine the ability of conservationists and policymakers to flag species that may be threatened by trade pressure.
In a note to the Chinese-language edition of Xinhua, the University of Melbourne made clear the need for standardized data collection across borders. “Existing customs and animal health inspection processes could be adapted to improve wildlife trade monitoring,” the university statement read. Hughes explained that the same systems already in place to track contraband goods could be reconfigured to gather systematic data on species, origin, and the amounts being shipped. Without such standard protocols, the effect of trade on population dynamics remains largely unknown.
The lack of data has broader implications for sustainability. “We have no data on quantity and origins, let alone the population level data to assess if trade poses a risk to species survival,” Hughes warned. The study recommends that governments adopt a unified data framework that records species, quantities, and verifiable origin for all trade. Such a framework would enable cross‑national analysis of trade flows, help identify emerging threats, and allow variables such as market pressure to be linked with population trends.
International trade groups have begun to respond. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has already identified gaps in its national reporting, especially for legal trade in plant and fungal species. In contrast, the article notes that the Wildlife Trade Information Network (WTIN), a global data platform, has limited coverage for species that are primarily sold through domestic markets. These open questions underline a persistent challenge: how can trade that is legally permitted be tracked without stifling legitimate commerce?
While the University of Melbourne study offers a sobering view of the breadth of the industry, it also lays the groundwork for future research and policy. The authors argue that a single standardized protocol could significantly reduce uncertainty. They envision a system that incorporates existing customs data, biological sampling, and digital tracking tools to provide real‑time insight into trade networks. However, questions remain about implementation, funding, and enforcement across countries with varying governance capacities.
In light of these findings, several lines of inquiry emerge. First, what proportion of the 107,356 species are at risk of population decline due to trade? Second, how can the data gaps be bridged without imposing disproportionate administrative burdens on exporters and importers? Third, will standardized data collection align with privacy concerns for companies and individuals involved in the supply chain?
Policy makers, conservationists, and the private sector will likely face these questions in the coming months. The Xinhua report calls for coordinated action, especially among the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and NGOs. The study’s authors have made the full dataset available to the scientific community, hoping that open access will accelerate collaborative solutions. Whether industry players will adopt new reporting requirements or if governments will mandate them remains to be seen. But the study certainly adds a clarion call: the wildlife trade reaches a level of complexity previously unmeasured, and accountability will hinge on capturing the missing data at a global scale.
